The Stone Cut From The Mountain...

[Deborah]

I just finished listening to a CD of Bushman on Joseph Smith's relationship with God. Joseph very much understood that the kingdom of God wasn't just a closed society of Mormons but all people who wished to live in a Zion society. He was also very adamant that everyone have a right to worship as they believed within this Zion society. I think that for awhile after his death, and out of necessity to survive, the church did cocoon itself, but as we have encompassed more of the world, this Zion society encompassing all faiths has become more of a reality, particularly here in the heart of Mormonism.

[Uncle Dale]

I think it's time for true Latter-day Saints to carry out "Joseph's measures"

and quit compromising and abandoning the principles he taught.

Uh... yeah, I guess...

Uncle "shall I read out my g-g-g-grandfather's pat blessing, with the JS vengeance part?" Dale

[Zakuska]

Interesting...

Dan 8

21 And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.

22 Now that being abroken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.

23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.

24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power; and he shall adestroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall bdestroy the mighty and the choly people.

25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and aby peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

It seems that the Anti-Christ Came out of Greece...

[freakin a man]

3DOP

It seems to me like it is possible that Christ was warning the scribes and Pharisees in Mt. 21. When He noted that the kingdom of God would be taken away, it seems to be in direct parallel with the parables He has just told. I am suggesting He might have meant the Old Testament order with Temples, animal sacrifices, and Jewish leaders as the kingdom which would be taken away and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits. Apparently, that is the way they understood it as well:---Mt. 21:45

I am not saying that your interpretation is certainly false, but I do take issue if you would dogmatically assert that there is no other way of understanding Mt. 21:43 than what you have offered above. I have offered a fuller explanation of another interpretation than the one you suggest in post #38 of this same thread. It was directed to someone else, but you are also welcome to explain why the theory that I present, understanding Christ to be warning the Jewish leaders about losing the kingdom is false. Virtually the entire context is Christ and the Jewish leaders and then ends with them perceiving it was about them. I admit, they might have been wrong, but I tend to think it quite possible that they understood His meaning correctly as appertaining to them.

I can understand that Jesus may not have been directly referring to Daniel 2 above. However my angle is simply that in Daniel 2:44 where it says: "and the kingdom shall not be left to other people" that phrase has to mean something important. Was there a kingdom that was left to another people? I think a distinction is made so that one will not confuse the kingdom that was left to another people and the kingdom in Daniel 2 that was not to be left to another people.

I believe there was a kingdom that was given to another people. I see the New Testament Church or Kingdom being taken from the original group it was targeted at "the jews" and being given to another people who where more ready to receive it (the Gentiles). This kingdom that was given to another people must have been destroyed and God will restore or bring a kingdom in later that would would not be destroyed.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think it's time for true Latter-day Saints to carry out "Joseph's measures" and quit compromising and abandoning the principles he taught.

Here's an interesting quote explaining the stone in question better:

While the term Kingdom of God can include the Church, it seems clear to me (given the political context) that the Kingdom referred to in Daniel Chap. 2 is more specific than that.

Excellent finds, all of them.

[USU78]

Interesting...

Dan 8

21 And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.

22 Now that being abroken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.

23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.

24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power; and he shall adestroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall bdestroy the mighty and the choly people.

25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and aby peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

It seems that the Anti-Christ Came out of Greece...

Mia Thermopolis?

[Pem]

I just wanted to point out that the Daniel 2 dream interpretation could be explained esoterically rather than exoterically(as most have done). For example, rather than the statue representing different civil kingdoms, e.g. Greece, Rome, Persia, try to imagine it as representing different states of mind(kingdoms) in the evolution of the (Nebuchadnezzar's) soul. In the end, after his life was shattered and was forced to live with the animals, he learned a wisdom(stone cut without hands) providing him with everlasting peace.

And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation: Daniel 4: 34

[LifeOnaPlate]

From Jedediah M. Grant in the Journal of Discourses:

Notwithstanding this display of the power of God in fulfilling His word, we need not expect the eyes of the inhabitants of the earth to be opened to understand the meaning of the astounding events that are transpiring around them, for one of the marked signs of the last days is, the blindness of the people; we are told they should have eyes and see not, and ears but hear not, and hearts but understand not. If in the days of Jesus this was true of the Jews and surrounding nations, it is doubly so now in relation to the nations with which we are acquainted. (JoD 2:145)

If you think the world will see the stone coming all along, you've got to check out what Jesus said on the subject. I reckon I'd begin with Matthew 25.

[3DOP]

I can understand that Jesus may not have been directly referring to Daniel 2 above. However my angle is simply that in Daniel 2:44 where it says: "and the kingdom shall not be left to other people" that phrase has to mean something important. Was there a kingdom that was left to another people? I think a distinction is made so that one will not confuse the kingdom that was left to another people and the kingdom in Daniel 2 that was not to be left to another people.

I believe there was a kingdom that was given to another people. I see the New Testament Church or Kingdom being taken from the original group it was targeted at "the jews" and being given to another people who where more ready to receive it (the Gentiles). This kingdom that was given to another people must have been destroyed and God will restore or bring a kingdom in later that would would not be destroyed.

3DOP

I also believe there was a kingdom given to another people. I also agree that this would be the New Testament kingdom which would have been received by the Jews who had been the stewards of the kingdom (to use the language of the parable in Mt. 21). I agree that Daniel implies that someone will lose a kingdom. First, every one of the first four empires lost their politcial kingdoms. In addition, the Jews lost their spiritual kingdom per Mt. 21. What followed was the kingdom that filled the earth, the New Testament Church, with the promise that unlike the kingdoms which fell before it, it would never be lost.

The kingdom which was taken away, according to my understanding of the parables of Mt. 21, is that vineyard which was tended by stewards who killed the son and heir of the householder. auteur55 cited Mt. 21:43 to prove that the stone could not be the early church be cause the early church lost the kingdom in Mt. 21:43. I suggested that it could be read that the Jews lost the kingdom in Mt. 21:43, and it was given to the nations in the form of the church which as Daniel 2 says, is not left to others. I am not saying that auteur55 misinterpreted the passage. I can understand how a Mormon might be led to think that Jesus is saying that the early church will lose the kingdom. But I don't follow how I might know that the early church loses the kingdom on the basis of Mt. 21:43 when that verse seems also to possibly point to the Jews as losing the kingdom rather than the early church.

The parallel passage in St Luke even more vividly describes the response of the Jews who perceived that they were being accused by Christ by parable and that He was threatening that the kingdom would be taken away from the stewards and given to those who followed the Son and Heir who they were plotting to kill:

And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them.

---Lk. 20:19

There is also an interesting passage in Mt. 8:10 where Jesus is impressed with the faith of a Roman centurion and hints that someone would be losing the kingdom:

[Zakuska]

Mt. 16:18-20

Well lets see... "Death will not prevail against the church"... why?

Because the Church had to die so it could be ressurected. (ie Brought back from Heaven)

2 Pet. 1: 14

[Bee Eff]

Well, for one thing, I watched a recent Republican candidates' debate on TV in which

Mitt Romney said that his religion believes in the separation of church and state.

How can you have a world-wide kingdom prepared for the millennium, if its leaders are

not the leaders of a world-wide religion that has rolled throughout the earth crushing under

it all other rival human institutions?

The doctrine spoken of at the time of JS's own bid for the US Presidency was emphatically

one of joining church and state, with the ultimate triumph of the Mormons over all other

rival groups.

Did I miss something between 1844 and 2007?

UD

Not just that -- but in Daniel's day, separation of church and state was unheard of.

Each of the Four Empires also held a religious monopoly over its subjects --- (OK, not

a total monopoly -- sects like the Jews, or Isis-worshippers, etc. were tolerated in

some cases, so long as they did not challenge the imperial order of things).

So, if the Mormon Church is the Fifth Empire, then we should expect it to not only

destroy and replace civil governments, but institutions like the Church of England

and the theocracy in Iran -- sooner or later.

As some other good MB members have already said, it is unclear how much of this is

supposed to occur before the millennium and how much after the Second Coming.

But it is the PREPARATION for the joining of church and state that I am interested in.

A year after the July, 1843 discourses, Sidney Rigdon again addressed the Saints at

Nauvoo, and told them that they were chosen to be part of the Political Kingdom of God --

not just a theoretical proposition, but a real civil-religious institution.

A year later, in Pittsburgh, Rigdon claimed to have set up that very Kingdom.

????

UD

K, late response, but you have read these have you not?

Articles of Faith

12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

Josh. 24: 15

15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

and then finally:

6

[Uncle Dale]

K, late response, but you have read these have you not?

Articles of Faith

12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring,

and sustaining the law.

Actions speak more loudly than words. When the LDS First Presidency challenged the Missouri

Gentiles to a war of extermination, on July 4, 1838, the LDS leaders did so with the understanding

that they were exempting themself from the state and national legal and political system.

When that did not work out so well, the Mormons endeavored to get charters from the Illinois

Legislature which they thought would allow them to set up what was essentially an independent

state-within-a-state (with JS secretly crowned king in 1844).

When that did not work out so well, the Mormons attempted to set up an independent state in the

west, on land still owned by Mexico, with a port city at Los Angeles.

When that did not work out so well, the Mormons attempted to get "Deseret" recognized as a

state of the Union which they themselves would control socially and politically.

When that did not work, the Mormon leaders submitted to a Territorial government, only after

making the non-Mormon civil officials so unwelcome that they were replaced by a defacto LDS

theocracy, operating as what on paper appeared to be a Territorial government.

When that did not work, President Buchanan sent out Johnston's Army, set up Camp Floyd,

founded Camp Douglas and forced the Mormons into a separation of church and state in

practice as well as theory.

Regardless of any "Article of Faith" history speaks for itself.

We Reorganized LDS have the same article -- but you never hear of RLDS planning for the joining

of church and state in an anticipated "Political Kingdom of God." You never hear RLDS speaking of

the day when our elders will save a US Constitution "hanging by a thread," and establish a

theocracy, the keys of which will be handed over to Christ at the second coming.

If the LDS Church is the "Fifth Empire," replacing every other civil and religious institution on the

face of the earth -- then they need only interpret the submission to governments as being a

submission to other Mormons -- today, next week or in the millennium.

Why would I want such a stone, cut from the mountain, to roll over me?

But that is a rhetorical question -- for the LDS Church is not that stone and, in my humble opinion,

it never will be, regardless of submission to civil government, or not.

President John Taylor is quoted as saying: "The Kingdom, or nothing!" And so long as I draw breath,

I will do all that I can do to see that it is his second option, and not his first, that comes to pass.

UD

[LifeOnaPlate]

President John Taylor is quoted as saying: "The Kingdom, or nothing!" And so long as I draw breath,

I will do all that I can do to see that it is his second option, and not his first, that comes to pass.

UD

He is actually quoted as saying "The Kingdom of God or nothing." Whether he was right in what he believed the Kingdom of God was or not, your atheism/agnosticism shines through loud and clear, aye? So much for avoiding agendas and executing objective history. . .

[Bee Eff]

Actions speak more loudly than words. When the LDS First Presidency challenged the Missouri

Gentiles to a war of extermination, on July 4, 1838, the LDS leaders did so with the understanding

that they were exempting themself from the state and national legal and political system.

When that did not work out so well, the Mormons endeavored to get charters from the Illinois

Legislature which they thought would allow them to set up what was essentially an independent

state-within-a-state (with JS secretly crowned king in 1844).

When that did not work out so well, the Mormons attempted to set up an independent state in the

west, on land still owned by Mexico, with a port city at Los Angeles.

When that did not work out so well, the Mormons attempted to get "Deseret" recognized as a

state of the Union which they themselves would control socially and politically.

When that did not work, the Mormon leaders submitted to a Territorial government, only after

making the non-Mormon civil officials so unwelcome that they were replaced by a defacto LDS

theocracy, operating as what on paper appeared to be a Territorial government.

When that did not work, President Buchanan sent out Johnston's Army, set up Camp Floyd,

founded Camp Douglas and forced the Mormons into a separation of church and state in

practice as well as theory.

Regardless of any "Article of Faith" history speaks for itself.

We Reorganized LDS have the same article -- but you never hear of RLDS planning for the joining

of church and state in an anticipated "Political Kingdom of God." You never hear RLDS speaking of

the day when our elders will save a US Constitution "hanging by a thread," and establish a

theocracy, the keys of which will be handed over to Christ at the second coming.

If the LDS Church is the "Fifth Empire," replacing every other civil and religious institution on the

face of the earth -- then they need only interpret the submission to governments as being a

submission to other Mormons -- today, next week or in the millennium.

Why would I want such a stone, cut from the mountain, to roll over me?

But that is a rhetorical question -- for the LDS Church is not that stone and, in my humble opinion,

it never will be, regardless of submission to civil government, or not.

President John Taylor is quoted as saying: "The Kingdom, or nothing!" And so long as I draw breath,

I will do all that I can do to see that it is his second option, and not his first, that comes to pass.

UD

You are skewing history to support your argument, the 'extermination war' was not started by the Church. You must remember that the people chose the course that Utah took, it appears contradictory and odd due to the conflict between people's desires and the divinely advised course. Also, until Utah became a state, Utah's law was its own.

Believing in honoring and sustaining the law does not equate to a passive acceptance of the law.

... You never hear of RLDS planning for the joining

of church and state in an anticipated "Political Kingdom of God." You never hear RLDS speaking of

the day when our elders will save a US Constitution "hanging by a thread," and establish a

theocracy, the keys of which will be handed over to Christ at the second coming.

Speculation on, and action taken from interpretation of, ambiguous religious statements is a failing of most followers of religion. The followers of the God of the Bible have historically had problems with personal interpretation of knowledge held. Christ himself found it necessary to correct lay peoples views as well as the Church leadership of the time, due to misinterpretation. Moses did similar with leaders in Israel, in correcting erroneous perceptions of religion as Hebrews should follow it. LDS people that speak as you state may or may not be falling to the same error. It is possible they are correct, the statements they quote could be interpretted as such, but I do not hold that the statements they use to support this position necessarily result in this conclusion. Metaphor and symbolism are too heavy in Biblical religious text and statement to assume a literal interpretation of any scripture, regardless of the probability of such an interpretation.

[LifeOnaPlate]

You are skewing history to support your argument, the 'extermination war' was not started by the Church. You must remember that the people chose the course that Utah took, it appears contradictory and odd due to the conflict between people's desires and the divinely advised course. Also, until Utah became a state, Utah's law was its own.

Believing in honoring and sustaining the law does not equate to a passive acceptance of the law.

Speculation on, and action taken from interpretation of, ambiguous religious statements is a failing of most followers of religion. The followers of the God of the Bible have historically had problems with personal interpretation of knowledge held. Christ himself found it necessary to correct lay peoples views as well as the Church leadership of the time, due to misinterpretation. Moses did similar with leaders in Israel, in correcting erroneous perceptions of religion as Hebrews should follow it. LDS people that speak as you state may or may not be falling to the same error. It is possible they are correct, the statements they quote could be interpretted as such, but I do not hold that the statements they use to support this position necessarily result in this conclusion. Metaphor and symbolism are too heavy in Biblical religious text and statement to assume a literal interpretation of any scripture, regardless of the probability of such an interpretation.

But Dale doesn't believe in the Bible, or as far as I know, God.

[USU78]

But Dale doesn't believe in the Bible, or as far as I know, God.

We're getting into ad hominem territory here, folks. Let's be better neighbors with folks who don't necessarily share the specifics of our faith but who are more than a little bit familiar with historical developments. Fact is, I doubt you have a very clear understanding of what Rabbi Unk does and doesn't believe. That's no basis upon which to make a judgment, assuming judgment is appropriate, which I highly doubt.

May I add a bit? My own view is that the Council of Fifty and the 4 July speech by Elder Rigdon are evidences of the same thing: a response by individuals in Church leadership positions to pressures applied by outside forces. The [largely] Jewish makers of the Brigham Young movie from 1940 recognized this in our history and saw in it a parallel to their own people's responses to then current European events as well as historical events in Jewish history. The old saying, "This animal is vicious: when attacked, it defends itself," best describes the situation.

Now, I'm not for whitewashing whatever obnoxiousness the early Saints in Missouri both South of the river and North of the river may have engaged in that may have been seen by Gentile Missouriana as provocative, but this most important fact remains: it's the Saints who were forced to leave. That is the most telling fact of all, and our Jewish friends in Hollywood, then attempting to affect US public opinion on the eve of Pearl Harbor, recognized its overarching significance. No amount of obnoxious provocation justifies the forcible removal of the LDS population from Missouri on pain of death, modern apologetic attempts to rehabilitate Bogges notwithstanding.

The same reasoning applies in Illinois: remember who was forced to leave. Details often obscure what is essential, as the Fox told the Little Prince. We ought in other words, as Dr. Lector suggested, to reduce things to what is essential. Only then can we truly understand them. Mormons buy land in an area and begin to build a temple; they are compelled to leave the area.

USU "But they eventially found the place" 78

[LifeOnaPlate]

We're getting into ad hominem territory here, folks. Let's be better neighbors with folks who don't necessarily share the specifics of our faith but who are more than a little bit familiar with historical developments. Fact is, I doubt you have a very clear understanding of what Rabbi Unk does and doesn't believe. That's no basis upon which to make a judgment, assuming judgment is appropriate, which I highly doubt.

I don't think it's ad hominem at all, unless ones particular beliefs expressed in a plain manner are ad hominem. I'm not an expert on what Uncle Dale subscribes to, but my point in mentioning his position was in response to a previous post which appealed to the bible and historical or Biblical Christianity. My point was, the argument won't hold water with Uncle Dale, as he doesn't subscribe to the basis of the argument to begin with. I also qualified my comment, saying "as far as I know," as I am not certain.

ps- The Little Prince is a great book.

[Uncle Dale]

You are skewing history to support your argument, the 'extermination war' was not started by the Church....

Have you really looked into this part of your history very closely?

Rigdon's treasonable address to the assembled Mormons at Far West was made on the 4th of July

for a reason -- and that reason was that the LDS First Presidency was declaring its own independence

from civil law. Henceforth the topmost Mormon leaders would determine for themselves what exactly

constituted a "mob" and what legal cases brought against them were valid or a "vexation."

In a nutshell, the three men who then headed the Mormon Church made Caldwell Co., Missouri an

independent state and a miniature nation unto itself. President Rigdon's threat to carry a war of

extermination into Gentile homes and to the innocent members of families within those Gentile homes

was not just idle rhetoric. The LDS First Presidency sat as a quorum on the podium in the public

square at Far West that day and expanded the power its three leaders had exercised over their own

"apostates" in President's Rigdon's recent "salt sermon," to impose the same upon the neighboring Gentiles.

Just as the LDS leaders had taken it upon themselves to determine which members were "salt which

had lost its savor," and must be trodden under foot, on July 4, 1839 they also took it upon themselves

to determine which Gentile homes might be entered, looted, burned and the inhabitants murdered

with impunity, under their own alleged divine authority.

What had been the proper authority of constituted law and elected government, the LDS First Presidency

took into their own hands. Henceforth they would determine for themselves whether a Gentile

constable serving a trial summons, or an arrest warrant, or a notice for jury duty had proper authority,

or was a "mob" of one. This was the same Mormon arrogance that prompted the same First Presidency

to refuse to pay their Gentile creditors four years later, when they all declared bankruptcy at Nauvoo,

a disregard for non-Mormon society that had its start on July 4th, 1838 in neighboring Missouri.

Following that Mormon declaration of independence and publicly proclaimed threat of a war of Gentile

extermination, Joseph Smith, Jr. had the July 4th address published on the LDS Church's press, in

the office of the official Church publication where he was the managing editor.

Following the Mormon declaration of independence and publicly proclaimed threat of a war of Gentile

extermination, Joseph Smith, Jr. extended the Mormons' realm of political power to neighboring

Daviess County, where Mormons from Caldwell attempted to cast votes in a Daviess election. Within

weeks Apostle Lyman Wight was plundering and burning the homes of my Broadhurst ancestral

relatives at Gallatin, the county seat of Daviess.

Here, then, is an historical example of the sort of thing we can expect when the powers of church and

state are joined in a single ruler (or in a quorum of three such rulers) over whom no external checks

and balances can be brought to bear --------- unless they be the armed militia of the State of Missouri.

Why should I respect, honor and trust such a theocracy?

Dale R. Broadhurst

[LifeOnaPlate]

Have you really looked into this part of your history very closely?

Rigdon's treasonable address to the assembled Mormons at Far West was made on the 4th of July

for a reason -- and that reason was that the LDS First Presidency was declaring its own independence

from civil law. Henceforth the topmost Mormon leaders would determine for themselves what exactly

constituted a "mob" and what legal cases brought against them were valid or a "vexation."

In a nutshell, the three men who then headed the Mormon Church made Caldwell Co., Missouri an

independent state and a miniature nation unto itself. President Rigdon's threat to carry a war of

extermination into Gentile homes and to the innocent members of families within those Gentile homes

was not just idle rhetoric. The LDS First Presidency sat as a quorum on the podium in the public

square at Far West that day and expanded the power its three leaders had exercised over their own

"apostates" in President's Rigdon's recent "salt sermon," to impose the same upon the neighboring Gentiles.

Just as the LDS leaders had taken it upon themselves to determine which members were "salt which

had lost its savor," and must be trodden under foot, on July 4, 1839 they also took it upon themselves

to determine which Gentile homes might be entered, looted, burned and the inhabitants murdered

with impunity, under their own alleged divine authority.

What had been the proper authority of constituted law and elected government, the LDS First Presidency

took into their own hands. Henceforth they would determine for themselves whether a Gentile

constable serving a trial summons, or an arrest warrant, or a notice for jury duty had proper authority,

or was a "mob" of one. This was the same Mormon arrogance that prompted the same First Presidency

to refuse to pay their Gentile creditors four years later, when they all declared bankruptcy at Nauvoo,

a disregard for non-Mormon society that had its start on July 4th, 1838 in neighboring Missouri.

Following that Mormon declaration of independence and publicly proclaimed threat of a war of Gentile

extermination, Joseph Smith, Jr. had the July 4th address published on the LDS Church's press, in

the office of the official Church publication where he was the managing editor.

Following the Mormon declaration of independence and publicly proclaimed threat of a war of Gentile

extermination, Joseph Smith, Jr. extended the Mormons' realm of political power to neighboring

Daviess County, where Mormons from Caldwell attempted to cast votes in a Daviess election. Within

weeks Apostle Lyman Wight was plundering and burning the homes of my Broadhurst ancestral

relatives at Gallatin, the county seat of Daviess.

Here, then, is an historical example of the sort of thing we can expect when the powers of church and

state are joined in a single ruler (or in a quorum of three such rulers) over whom no external checks

and balances can be brought to bear --------- unless they be the armed militia of the State of Missouri.

Why should I respect, honor and trust such a theocracy?

Dale R. Broadhurst

Without subscribing to the contents of the salt sermon, may I ask what drew it out? Why did Rigdon give the sermon?

Also, more on the Kingdom:

"The kingdom that Daniel saw will push forth its law, and that law will protect the Methodists, Quakers, Pagans, Jews, and every other creed there ever was or ever will be, in their religious rights. At the same time the Priesthood will bear rule, and hold the government of the Kingdom under control in all things, so that every knee will bow, and every tongue confess, to the glory of God the Father, that Jesus is the Christ. Every one must bow to the Savior, and acknowledge and confess him with their mouths. Can they still be Methodists? Yes. Presbyterians? Yes...

"The kingdom that Daniel saw will actually make laws to protect every man in his rights, as our government does now, whether the religions of the people are true or false. We believe this as sincerely as we believe anything elseâ?¦" (Brigham Young discourse, JoD 2:179-191)

[Uncle Dale]

Without subscribing to the contents of the salt sermon, may I ask what drew it out?

Why did Rigdon give the sermon?

It was not just Rigdon -- as happened again on July 4th, a few weeks later, Joseph Smith, Jr. sat with

him on the podium, in support of his "spokesman," before the assembled Mormons at Far West.

The occasion for the salt sermon was the First Presidency's consolidation of civil power in Caldwell Co.

The previous High Council of "Zion" (Zion having been temporarily moved from Jackson to Caldwell)

was dissolved and its presidency thrown out of office, by a special high council organized ad hoc

upon the motivations of the Kirtland First Presidency (recently relocated to Missouri from Ohio).

However, by simply throwing the Whitmers, Phelps, Cowdery, et al. out of office, the Mormon

First Presidency still had not solved the problem of Missouri Saints failing to give their full support

to the relocated First Presidency. The Salt Sermon was a means whereby the Mormon leaders

declared a civil authority over their own members, and "warned out of town" those members thought

to be disloyal or disobedient.

The implicit assumption of civil authority by religious leaders was a joining of church and state which

I believe was one of the first overt manifestations of "The Kingdom" among the Latter Day Saints.

UD

[LifeOnaPlate]

It was not just Rigdon -- as happened again on July 4th, a few weeks later, Joseph Smith, Jr. sat with

him on the podium, in support of his "spokesman," before the assembled Mormons at Far West.

The occasion for the salt sermon was the First Presidency's consolidation of civil power in Caldwell Co.

The previous High Council of "Zion" (Zion having been temporarily moved from Jackson to Caldwell)

was dissolved and its presidency thrown out of office, by a special high council organized ad hoc

upon the motivations of the Kirtland First Presidency (recently relocated to Missouri from Ohio).

However, by simply throwing the Whitmers, Phelps, Cowdery, et al. out of office, the Mormon

First Presidency still had not solved the problem of Missouri Saints failing to give their full support

to the relocated First Presidency. The Salt Sermon was a means whereby the Mormon leaders

declared a civil authority over their own members, and "warned out of town" those members thought

to be disloyal or disobedient.

The implicit assumption of civil authority by religious leaders was a joining of church and state which

I believe was one of the first overt manifestations of "The Kingdom" among the Latter Day Saints.

UD

That's one man's view, and as demonstrated, the view of a man antagonistic to the entire Latter-day Saint movement, whose agenda is to throw it down. Can we expect a level interpretation of events from one solely dedicated to the Church...or one solely dedicated against it? Are there any other ways to view the situation? Do we have any statements by Joseph Smith, or actions by him that indicate he approved of or disapproved of what Rigdon had said? Are there any non-condemning circumstances surrounding the tense situation of the Church?

Life "agenda agenda agenda" OnaPlate

[Uncle Dale]

That's one man's view, and as demonstrated, the view of a man antagonistic

to the entire Latter-day Saint movement, whose agenda is to throw it down...

And an "agenda" you will find well-documented and castigated on the anti-Unk web site, no doubt.

Uncle "you wouldn't happen to have the URL handy for those on-line anti-Unk LDS refutations, would you?" Dale

.

[LifeOnaPlate]

And an "agenda" you will find well-documented and castigated on the anti-Unk web site, no doubt.

Uncle "you wouldn't happen to have the URL handy for those on-line anti-Unk LDS refutations, would you?" Dale

.

Life "I'd prefer to discuss it here, and await your answers to the questions I posed in my post immediately before this one" OnaPlate

[Uncle Dale]

Life "I'd prefer to discuss it here, and await your answers to the questions I posed in my post immediately before this one" OnaPlate

Can we expect a level interpretation of events from one solely dedicated to the Church...

or one solely dedicated against it?

Of course not -- and that is why this message board allows the input of all the members who

wish to contribute to such a dialogue.

Every now and then a consensus agreement on past history can be arrived at, through such

interaction of diverse viewpoints.

Even if you do not find any of my "interpretations" believeable, you have the right (and some

might say the obligation) to add information you have discovered -- and thus help clarify things.

Care to hold up your end of the current discussion?

UD

[LifeOnaPlate]

Of course not -- and that is why this message board allows the input of all the members who

wish to contribute to such a dialogue.

Every now and then a consensus agreement on past history can be arrived at, through such

interaction of diverse viewpoints.

Even if you do not find any of my "interpretations" believeable, you have the right (and some

might say the obligation) to add information you have discovered -- and thus help clarify things.

Care to hold up your end of the current discussion?

UD

But my questions are still unanswered.